The problem remains ...

Eric Zemmour is a living paradox. Although it radiates dallure puny, and his opinion, although a minority, did fly. One can even say that he faces gleefully all the little Marquis of contemporary conformism, lined up in rows doignons on TV trays, and make a point of confusing this dangerous deviant to the single thought.
He, alone against this army of well-meaning, scrap brilliantly, firing on all cylinders to push their ridiculous attacks. It easily manages both the strategy of his opponents is monolithic and predictable. And supreme reward, even bad faith which he sometimes punctuating the evidence of a small sardonic laughter, helps to strengthen the influence he enjoys among the people of a tired sonorous platitudes and bland axioms of political correctness.
But if the ideological battleground that he travels swords, it is quite enjoyable to follow, just as his arguments strike and strong, we must admit Quà times, the impression is that it is carried away by his enthusiasm, even even that it is the wrong target, or it gets lost in the load

Initially, the findings are striking and incisive style of the author wonders.
Where it undertakes such, the demolition of derision-deconstruction-destruction triptych which according to him havoc in French society by undermining its pillars, no problem, he is right. His critics have a field to reproach him to the passage of the trial lhomosexualité, women and lislam, or make the game of the National Front, he does not care, demonstrating that is nothing more obviously false.
WHEN IT sattaque because the confusion of genres, this is for those who methodically destroy societal benchmarks that it caters, not those that he considers victims of this rampage.
It is true that this is not an insult to the gay community than lament quen its name, we come to establish this legal monstrosity of marriage for all. Because want to devote their uniqueness by this perfect symbol of bourgeois conformity, it is a bit like Harlequin dress suit of a broker three parts. This is simply grotesque.
It is also not take sen to women than to mock the excesses of feminism, especially lorsquils lead to insane gesticulations of Femen, or the recent farce view congregation Nationale, during which one member was punished for SETRE obstinate in session THE sadresser Madame President?
This is not to despise Muslims to condemn the most radical interpretations of Islam, that come into conflict with flagrant republican principles and sometimes drift into crime. This is not a mistake to salarmer dangerous drifts quon sees everywhere prevail over respectable practices. And this is not a sin daffirmer that it is suicidal to mix in the same respect believers and those abusing the credulity of these, speak for God and want to do their bloody frenzy law, applicable to all.

But obviously, it is not of so deaf as those who will not hear nor worse than that Sechin interlocutor not want to understand.
Facing Zemmour, this is all the gaucho-coco-altermondialo eco-clique that aligns its hackneyed cliches waves hints Rousseau and gregarious cowardice. In this maelstrom of viscous good feelings and bad conscience, ideas soften like old chewing gum and sagrègent to each other, forming a sticky matrix. The fallacy takes the place of reasoning and lamalgame practice always brings the same famous point Godwin, to say this is the reductio ad hitlerum. Whatever you say, you will always be treated merely rightist and even Nazi. The principle is simple. If you object to the latest laws supposed to give new rights to women or homosexuals, you are sometimes macho, sometimes homophobic. In both cases, you are suspected of fascism, so Nazi power. If you make reservations on developments lislam, or if you're picking on the Palestinian cause, you are necessarily racist anti-Arab and Nazi fine in also. If you defend greater control of limmigration, you are consequently xenophobic and thus racist again, this is to say even Nazi. If you are defending "some idea" of France, you are naturally nationalist National Front, always Nazi, etc ...

Despite his Jewishness, supposed be his talisman, Zemmour therefore takes full figure from the small living room of censors. It must be said that he has dared to violate their codes!
We can not therefore too congratulate to have the courage to refuse lorthodoxie of this thought, outrageously simplistic and Manichean, prevailing in our country. But by the hour of globalization, however, is that it sétonne terminal in the devastating effects to France alone, which according to him would therefore trying to commit suicide. We still sétonne more he does this globalization hexagonal breaking on our cocoon, one of the main causes of our misfortunes, and that he can not consider solutions other than restoring the walls of France, in the image of a medieval fortress?
For if our country is undeniably in decline, perhaps this is because it is less than conquering the time of Louis XIV or Napoleon. It may also be because French mind so radiant past, is today at half mast. But it's probably a lot because we persist in not wanting to see that the world has changed beyond our borders. From this point of view, French Melancholy which demonstrated Eric Zemmour testimony of a little too much attachment to the past. To read it, France davant 68 was big and beautiful, and that it regrets the decline would be almost entirely contained in the most recent period, from the late sixties to the present day! Accordingly, it would be ny hi hopefully quen putting up this pretty Nation davant May 1968!

Unfortunately, the sources of evil are much older than Mr. Zemmour seems to think, and it may not have a dune too high porosity world plaguing France, but unlike SETRE locked in ideological fads and hardly navoir watched what was happening around her. As she lost her power once, it can not maintain the illusion that his influence, and his inability to Sopen're disabilities who weighs every day a little more heavily.

In truth, this is not of yesterday or even dated 1968, this curious myopia and spiritual folding.
It would probably go back to the 1789 Revolution, to really see the origins of this arrogant left turn, which Zemmour rightly denounces the misdeeds. This is little said than occasion of Robespierre terror, France missed its transition to democracy at the same time which brought to socialist in political and social corpus. There ensued a long period Derrance over two centuries saw a succession mad chimera of the First Empire, prodigious edifice but collapsed like a house of cards, return dune ephemeral and wobbly Monarchy, a Second Empire as illusory than the previous several failed revolutions, and finally a constellation of republics whose fifth of its kind still does not give satisfaction to the French! There is really nothing to be proud

Meanwhile leftism na stopped growing in the minds developed dimprégner nowadays every corner of society. Almost everything is now subservient to him, including léducation, justice, trade unions, media, culture, and of course the political field where linterdépendance powers perpetuates ideological concentration around the most influential schools of thought.
Whatever the displayed tendency of governments, France is floundering for ages in the same socialist stagnation which is made dadjoindre mine apparatus combination depending on circumstances and external pressures, a hint of more or less adulterated liberalism. General de Gaulle which Zemmour touts na no exception to the rule. It was he who presided over the great post-release social sites, from where emerged the famous French model that we drag as an untouchable ball. For this, na he not done well with the Communists? Do sest it not accommodated monstrous nationalization of the times? Wasnt it not at the head of a government that senorgueillissait to have a ministry of hiding information? Had he not done repeatedly demonstrate a false versatility and thus, did not he contributed to discredit the image of France?

It would however still go back a little further in time to update the deepest root of the French disease, ie the propensity to flood the administrative and bureaucratic centralization.
It is probably excessive to seek to hold Colbert sole responsibility of the scourge Jacobin as it seems consubstantial with the country, and this system could find few defenders when communications were on horseback, but he contributed not a little to the modern world linadaptation that manifests our country and its institutions sclerosis.

This story, Mr. Zemmour somewhat tendency to hide in his vengeful shortcuts. And Franco-French interpretative prism condemned to be locked in too narrow a logic to bring its ambitions. In fact, his nostalgia makes him doubt of progress, democracy, and worse, talk like dune calamity of the great wind of freedom came from the west, with a known tendency to break boundaries and to overthrow the potentates established.
He prefers to anchor his speech in the national old-fashioned paradigm, which lamène to doubt the virtues of Europe, and fear most of all, the evolution of the latter to the federative model that was so successful in the United States.
On these there paradoxically manifested a perfectly commonplace opinion, joining sadly lanti-Americanism rampant in minds. It strongly criticizes the Anglo-Saxon liberalism that he considers responsible for the globalization of cultures and luniformisation of unbridled free trade. Moreover, America this is according to him the kingdom of lindividu king that he hates, and communitarianism so damaging to her.
He does not see the admirable strength of national feeling that characterizes this great country. It seems to ignore the currency if still alive today across the Atlantic: e pluribus unum. And he does not see that far from being uneducated, America in just over two centuries, has become the new Athens of the modern world, for our greater good. Besides being the temple of scientific progress, it has always been patron of the arts, and in addition, it sest gradually become the cradle crowd dexpressions new dune, from cinema to music through literature!
This really make him a bad process than reducing as much embittered Gauls, its appetite for material goods and worship of the dollar ...

In total, Mr. Zemmour behaves with the open society in which he lives for his great misfortune, as one who wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. He sees some good drifts due to irresponsible permissiveness and demagogic egalitarianism, he rightly deplores. But he took the opportunity to accuse the model of all evils including those he is abroad, including many typically French structural defects. And in the end, he comes to reject ViaMichelin this modern society, the den risk losing the inestimable benefits, including freedom, quon should cherish and protect as far as prehistoric people did with the fire.
This is unfortunate, because due to its excessive and bounded tad, its about is weakened, and he exposes himself to accusations of traditionalism, chauvinism or xenophobia, as well as vain and stupid controversies ...
The great tragedy is that today we no longer believe in the model of free society of ours, and for which so much blood was shed, and so many sacrifices. Today, we confuse the fact of living in freedom with the right to live free. We French, so quick to boast of freedom, we have not been able to adapt to this virtue that we have nevertheless included pediments Palace of the Republic. We enjoy it but we do not like. We spend our time to squander and damage our whims of spoiled children. Soon, perhaps, we are no longer worthy of it. And Mr. Zemmour who observes so acute defects of his contemporaries, takes us in his own way on this slippery slope, because if he sees good, he misinterprets ...